[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: issue QUOTE-MAY-COPY, version 2
- To: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
- Subject: Re: issue QUOTE-MAY-COPY, version 2
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sandra J Loosemore)
- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 88 21:28:01 MST
- Cc: sandra <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>, Sun, 18 Dec 88 01:08:17 GMT
> More recently, the idea that
> QUOTE might copy once has appeared. That would correspond to your
> idea that EVAL causes a list to become a program.
> BTW, it is possible to ensure that only one copy is done?
I don't think see any problems with implementing the behavior
described in the current version of the proposal. We talked about the
implications of "only once" some time ago in relation to issue
LOAD-TIME-EVAL. I'm convinced that any copying would have to be done
by a preprocessor, but remember that in this case an implementation is
always free *not* to copy at all. There don't appear to be any
existing implementations that would be affected anyway.
Like I said before, this line of discussion does not really seem to be
getting us anywhere -- in particular, it doesn't seem like we are any
closer to a consensus. Earlier today I went through the back mail on
this issue since the latest version of the proposal was sent out, and
found that there was not really much substance arising out of it that
I could incorporate into the next revision of the writeup. Dan
Pierson has asked if we could assemble some -concise- summaries of the
arguments on all sides to include in the discussion section of the
writeup, and seeing as we only have a few days left now, I humbly
suggest we concentrate on getting the writeup in shape instead of
engaging in more drawn-out religious wars.